Letters to the Editor

Published 10:00 pm, Saturday, October 13, 2007

PROPOSITION 1

Method of financing all wrong I support the goals of Proposition 1, but I am going to vote no, for one reason only -- its method of financing. In fact, I have decided to vote against any future ballot measures that add onto the state sales tax.

When the state of Washington joins the rest of the country and adopts a fair income tax, and at the same time cuts back on sales taxes that are now at near confiscatory levels, I will resume my support of enlightened governmental proposals necessary for progress.

Don't reward arrogance of lone driver This is in response to Donald Padelford's remarkable statement (Thursday) that turning HOV lanes into HOT lanes will enable rapid transit to "service the entire ... region at 50 mph to 60mph, even at the height of rush hours:"

Judging by how many people I see alone in luxury cars, there are easily enough takers to make sure all lanes become equally congested -- unless the number of toll-payers is sharply limited, which I've never heard proposed.

I object to granting privileges to lone occupants of fancy cars, at any price because, as a pedestrian in downtown Seattle, I've been abused by too many such drivers. I've lost count of how many times this year I've been endangered by drivers running red lights, or those who think their "free right" turn on a red light takes precedence over my right to cross the street on a green. I've been honked at and sworn at by drivers who object to me occupying a crosswalk even for the pitifully short time now allowed by the walk lights. Easily 95 percent of the culprits are driving extravagant cars, alone. I don't want to see their arrogance rewarded.

Alison Slow LorisBremerton

Columnist endorses more sprawl I almost feel sorry for P-I columnist Ted Van Dyk. The man appears to have an ongoing obsession with mass transit the way some Republicans have an ongoing obsession with Hillary Clinton.

Now with voters poised to approve a 50-mile light rail expansion, Van Dyk can hardly contain his venom.

Empirical evidence? Forget it. It doesn't matter how much success even stereotypically auto-dominated cities such as Los Angeles and Denver have had with mass transit. No, according to Van Dyk, Seattle is the one special city where mass transit cannot work. Why? Because, he says, our "commuting patterns are diffuse."

Well, just because you've dug yourself into a hole doesn't mean you keep digging. The sad fact we've spent generations encouraging sprawl doesn't make encouraging even more sprawl any more sustainable, environmentally or economically.

Even then, we've still managed to establish thriving downtowns and huge suburban employment centers. Light rail reaches those hubs and, more important, it focuses future development around them.

Van Dyk also maintains light rail is just too expensive. Let's check back in about 10 years on the price of gas -- and the cost of climate change -- and we can talk about what's too expensive.

Mitch GitmanSeattle

See who profits from ST boondoggle Bravo to columnist Ted Van Dyk ("Stop light rail in its gold-plated tracks," Thursday).

For the past 15 years, I have gone to the airport from downtown via Metro bus No. 194. It leaves every 15 minutes, takes 25-30 minutes, depending on where you board, costs $2 and arrives right at the baggage claim area. It's simple, cheap, quick, reliable.

Sound Transit's light rail line traverses the same route in about the same time and has cost us $1.5 billion. For this boondoggle, the culprits may be the construction companies, labor groups, politicians wanting to leave a monument to themselves or a combination of all those plus ignorant and passive citizens. In any case, for that price we could have nearly rebuilt the viaduct, or built much of a replacement for the Evergreen Point Bridge, or obtained and run hundreds of new and comfortable buses for a whole generation.

If you don't believe how we've been swindled, take bus No. 194 from the tunnel. Then you'll see what a bunch of fools Sound Transit and its advocates have made of us.

Measure should require 2/3 to pass I have two questions about Initiative 960, which would require the Legislature to pass any future tax increases by a two-thirds vote.

First, why two-thirds? Why not three-fifths or three-quarters? Why not seven-eighths or nine-tenths? Why not a unanimous vote of the Legislature, with Tim Eyman and his followers holding veto power? I understand a majority vote -- I believe it's called "democracy" -- but what is the sacred principle involved in a two-thirds-atarian vote?

Second, shouldn't this initiative require a two-thirds vote of the electorate to pass? It doesn't seem right that a scant majority of citizens should be able to impose a stricter standard on the Legislature than they're willing to impose on themselves. Does it?

Administration mocks the military A military officer, 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, recognizes the Iraq "war" for the insanity that it is and asks to serve in Afghanistan instead. So he gets to face a court martial.

Andrew Moonen, a U.S. veteran who served in Iraq, goes to work as a mercenary for Blackwater, a private contractor for the U.S. government, gets drunk and kills an Iraqi who is guarding the Iraq vice president. And he gets a minor fine and a quick trip back to the U.S. No charges are brought against him.

The Bush administration barbarians running the U.S. government have made a mockery of the brave Americans who fought and won World War II and the Cold War.

Beverly IsensonSteilacoom

Commitment should be honored All this ongoing legal action with Ehren Watada is a disgrace. He became a voluntary commissioned officer of the U.S. military. Refusing an order is plain treason. He should face court martial immediately. Here he has been basically sitting, collecting his pay all these months. It is a dishonor and a total insult to the brave men and women who are serving and dying for our country. He should not be tried as a civilian. If this is to happen, he should first receive a dishonorable discharge from the military. I think the man is a coward, traitor and a disgrace to his uniform. What would have happened if in World War II our military leaders proclaimed "this order is against my beliefs and I won't be shipped to Europe"?

We are all entitled to our beliefs. However, when anyone voluntarily signs to protect our country, that is a commitment of following orders and serving. Watada needs to be dishonorably discharged immediately. As far as jail time, that is up to the military; I just want him out. Watada is a total blemish and disgrace to the country that I love.

Grete BoyceShoreline

We have to support law of the land The Army's chief media relations officer tells 1st Lt. Ehren Watada that it is "not your call" to refuse to serve in Iraq. "Those are political decisions" outside the military's purview, implying that Watada deserves to be court-martialed because he disobeyed his commander in chief.

The U.S. Senate recently killed an amendment that would prohibit the military from enlisting felons who have committed arson or assault with a deadly weapon.

The U.S. Supreme Court has just refused to review a suit against the U.S. by a German Muslim who was abducted, tortured and finally freed from a secret CIA prison.

The Nuremberg Principles, now part of our Constitution, describe crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity punishable under international law. Principle III states that a head of state is not excused from responsibility. Principle IV states that a subordinate is not excused, either, if a moral choice is available. Principle VI lists the specific crimes covered. The court of history will surely judge our president, Watada's superiors and now even some of our judges to be guilty of them all.

Could it be that our government's motive for opting out of the International Criminal Court is not to protect our soldiers from spurious indictments but to prevent indictment of deserving criminals at a higher level?

The citizens of our "nation of laws" must demand that our military officers, lawmakers and judges support, defend and enforce the highest law of the land and stop the crimes now.

James BrunerMajor, USAF (Ret)Oak Harbor

Soldiers can't be allowed to defy orders Dean Paton's piece in the Oct. 7 P-I was thoughtful, but missed the most important point in the debate over 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's refusal to serve in Iraq: civilian control of the military.

Soldiers of any rank cannot be allowed to defy the orders of a civilian administration, whether that means refusing to fight an unpopular war -- or starting one without authorization. Any other course sets a dangerous precedent for our democracy.

Watada appears sincere in his beliefs, but he must be held responsible for his actions.

Phillip JohnsonSeattle

KEEPING STREETS SAFE

Police priorities seems misplaced Wednesday's P-I reports that Seattle police assign low priority to protecting children from adults who use public parks as sexual playgrounds. Seattle requires that police assign low priority to the abatement of Hempfest drugs. Seattle the sanctuary requires that police assign less than low priority to assisting the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Police either ignored the transformation of downtown Seattle into a combat zone, or were slandered by strident activists and newspapers when they tried to intervene.

So what's our apparent top law-enforcement priority? Robert Jamieson, yesterday, gave us a clue: "(A)n unmarked vehicle sped toward us. ... Two guys jumped out wearing dark clothing." They were police officers defending us against jaywalkers.

Cody KernsSeattle

CANDIDATE DEBATE

Network didn't do voters a favor Maybe NBC thinks that putting the Republican debate on its channels was somehow a generous accommodation of the party the network opposes, but it gave NBC several opportunities to cut the legs out from under the candidates and amuse its regular liberal viewers.

First was the bad timing. The debate featured the most difficult and technical issues that a president has to deal with, taxes and the economy, during the daytime hours when the main demographic is homemakers. Then NBC refused to identify the speakers with screen graphics, (nine of them that few people recognize) until 20 minutes into the debates. Long enough so the barely interested would change the channel. When CNBC finally started putting names under the speakers, it was for mere seconds before switching back to a generic Republican label that was sure to turn off any dedicated Democratic voter who happened to surf by.

If Sean Hannity were to MC the next Democratic debate, and surprise the candidates by picking them unpredictably then rudely interrupting to demand an answer, that would balance out the job Chris Matthews did for liberal NBC producers.

Why The Wall Street Journal put its name on this mess is inexplicable; the newspaper's reporter asked only a few questions. But for those of us who tuned in to sort out the candidates, the answers were there. Those who couldn't be there to watch will have to catch the replay on YouTube's version, which the mainstream media can't control.